Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 439 (JHR)

Chaitali Sadhu v. State of Jharkhand

2022-04-12

S.N.PATHAK

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers:- I. To hold the objection raised by the respondent No.4 vide letter No. 1588 dated 08.07.2019 (Annexure-4) regarding appointment of Graduate Trained Teachers coming under Directorate of Secondary Education as violative of Article 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India as because the same bars the petitioner from joining the post of Graduate Trained Teacher even after having been shortlisted for the said post after qualifying the Combined Graduate Trained Teacher Competitive Exam conducted by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission. II. For a direction upon the respondents to take a decision over the representation filed by the petitioner with regard to the objections raised by the respondent No.4, III. For a direction upon the respondents to appoint the petitioner against the sanctioned and vacant post of Graduate Trained Teachers. 2. The case of the petitioner lies in a narrow compass. An advertisement being Advertisement No.21/2016 was floated by the respondent-Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission for conducting the Combined Graduate Trained Teacher Competitive Exam-2016 for appointment to the post of Graduate Trained Teacher. Pursuant to the same, petitioner having the requisite qualification, applied for the same for the said post under Bangla Subject and after appearing in the recruitment process, she was shortlisted for the said post under Bangla Subject vide result dated 22.04.2019. However, vide letter dated 08.07.2019 (impugned order), District Education Officer informed the petitioner that objection has been raised with regard to her selection to the post of Graduate Trained Teacher for the subject Bangla as the petitioner had studied Bangla as a subsidiary subject, whereas she passed Graduation with Math Honours subject and was accordingly, asked to submit her response, within one week. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner vide letter dated 12.07.2019, replied along with supporting documents and stated therein that as per requirement of the Advertisement, a candidate was supposed to have passed Graduation Examination with minimum 45 % in the subject applied for and there was no specification as to whether it is in subsidiary or Honours paper. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner vide letter dated 12.07.2019, replied along with supporting documents and stated therein that as per requirement of the Advertisement, a candidate was supposed to have passed Graduation Examination with minimum 45 % in the subject applied for and there was no specification as to whether it is in subsidiary or Honours paper. She also stated that one of her subject in graduation was Bangla and that it was compulsory to score minimum 45-50 % in order to awarded a graduate degree, but no heed was paid and the case of the petitioner was not recommended for appointment to the said post, whereas, at least 50 candidates all over the Jharkhand were appointed against the vacancy for subjects not being their Honours subject in graduation as per RTI filed by the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court. 3. Mrs. Akasnsha Anil, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the certificate of the petitioners ought to have been considered by the respondents as the petitioner is Graduate with Math Honours and had ‘Bangla’ Subject as a subsidiary subject as such, the action of the respondent is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law. The candidature of the petitioner cannot be rejected merely on the ground that Bangla was not a main subject. As per advertisement itself, the candidates were permitted to apply in more than one subject and as such, it is apparent that the candidates can apply in any subject irrespective of Honours/Subsidiary subjects. Accordingly, learned counsel prays that a direction may be given to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Graduate Trained Teacher in Bangla Subject. 4. On the other hand, counter-affidavit has been filed. However, Dr. A.K. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-JSSC and Suchendra Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State jointly argue that issue involved in this writ petition has already been set at rest by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court in W.P.(S) No.4631 of 2015, affirmed up to the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court. They further submit that petitioner is Graduate with Maths Honours, but Bangla subject was taken as a subsidiary subject and not main subject, therefore, rightly the case of the petitioner has not been recommended for appointment. They further submit that petitioner is Graduate with Maths Honours, but Bangla subject was taken as a subsidiary subject and not main subject, therefore, rightly the case of the petitioner has not been recommended for appointment. As per the Advertisement, if the candidate is applying for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher in Bangla Subject, he must have cleared B.A. Examination with Bangla as a main Subject and as such, there is no illegality on the part of the respondents. 5. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties and on perusal of the records, it appears that admittedly, the petitioner has done her Graduation but Bangla subject was taken as subsidiary subject and not as a main subject as required. Thus, the main subject of petitioner is not Bangla, hence, she cannot be appointed for the post of Graduate Trained Teacher in Bangla Subject. As per the advertisement, the petitioners must have cleared B.A. Examination in Bangla as main subject and not subsidiary subject for the post of Graduate Trained Teacher in Bangla Subject and she was not having the requisite qualification for appointment to the said post, rightly the case of the petitioner was not recommended for appointment. The issue fell for consideration before a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 4631 of 2015 and other analogous cases wherein vide order dated 18.03.2017, it has been held thus:- 19. To conclude, appointment on the post of Language teacher in the Upper Primary Schools requires a subjectspecific qualification similar to the qualifications for appointment as Mathematics/Science teacher or Social Science teacher. By subjectspecific qualification, I mean qualification in the “subject”. Language teacher is a distinct class of teachers, different from a Science or a Social Science teacher and for appointment on the post of Language teacher a qualification in Graduation with MIL or any other language as a compulsory subject is not a sufficient qualification. The RTE Act, 2009 and Rule 9 of the Appointment Rules, 2012 when examined in the context of the object for which three distinct category of teachers viz. Mathematics/Science, Social Sciences and Languages must be appointed in Upper Primary Schools, it becomes clear that the educational qualifications for appointment on the post of Mathematics/Science or Social Science teacher are not sufficient for appointment as a Language teacher; the educational qualification being subjectcentric. Mathematics/Science, Social Sciences and Languages must be appointed in Upper Primary Schools, it becomes clear that the educational qualifications for appointment on the post of Mathematics/Science or Social Science teacher are not sufficient for appointment as a Language teacher; the educational qualification being subjectcentric. If contention of the petitioners is accepted there would remain only two category of teachers; Mathematics/Science and Social Science, which, effectively, would obliterate the object behind the RTE Act, 2009 for compulsory appointment of language teachers. An interpretation which reduces statute to futility has be avoided even though there may be some inexactitude in the language used {Bhakara beas Management Board Vs. Krishan Kumar Vij & Anr. (2010) 8 SCC 701 ]. 20. As a sequel to the fore-going discussions what follows is, that the petitioners are not eligible for appointment on the post of Language teacher. 6. Further, the said judgment of Co-ordinate Bench was affirmed by the Hon’ble Division Bench vide order dated 27.06.2019 passed in LPA No. 209 of 2017 and other analogous cases, relevant paras of which reads thus:- 16. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and upon going through the record, we are in complete agreement with the findings given by the Hon’ble Single Judge, that a candidate, having MIL as a compulsory subject in Graduation level, cannot be appointed as a teacher in Languages. It is not denied that even the students doing Graduation in a particular Language, i.e., in Hindi, or in English, is also required to take MIL as one compulsory subject in the Graduation level, apart from several papers in the concerned language. Curriculum for Hindi, or English in Graduation level, shall have a different course contents compared to MIL as a compulsory paper. Curriculum for Hindi, or English in Graduation level, shall have a different course contents compared to MIL as a compulsory paper. Thus, if a teacher, is appointed in the subject of Languages, only having MIL as a compulsory paper, the children would be deprived of quality education in the concerned Language, inasmuch as, MIL as a compulsory subject, is included in the course of Graduation in all subjects, only to ensure that the students are going to have a minimum level of working language and proficiency in that language, but once a teacher is to be appointed for a particular subject, as for example, if he is to be appointed as a Science teacher, he must have the Graduation in Science, if he is being appointed as a teacher in Social Science, he must be a Graduate in Social Science, and if he is appointed as a Language teacher, he must be a Graduate exclusively in that Language. Any deviation in this practice shall result in deprivation of the children of proper education in Language, and shall frustrate the very aim and object of RCFCE Act, enacted by the Parliament of India. 17. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant in L.P.A. No. 219 of 2017, that this appellant has done M.A. in Hindi and she cannot be deprived of her appointment as an Assistant Teacher in Language, cannot be acceded to. In Parvaiz Ahmad Parry’s case (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, the said applicant had applied for the post of Range officer Grade-I, (Forest), for which, required qualification was B.Sc. in Forestry or its equivalent from any University, recognized by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR). The appellant was having the qualification of B.Sc., with Forestry as one of the major subjects, and M.Sc. (Forestry), and in that backdrop, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the appellant was fulfilling the eligibility criteria for the post of Range officer Grade-I, (Forest). Whereas in the present case, the appellant in L.P.A. No. 219 of 2017, was not having the degree of B.A. (Hons.) in Hindi, she was having the qualification of B.A. with Labour and Social Welfare, though, she was having MIL Hindi as one of the subjects. Whereas in the present case, the appellant in L.P.A. No. 219 of 2017, was not having the degree of B.A. (Hons.) in Hindi, she was having the qualification of B.A. with Labour and Social Welfare, though, she was having MIL Hindi as one of the subjects. There is nothing on the record to show as to how she was allowed to do M.A. in Hindi by Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prasar Sabha, Madras, even though she was not having the B.A. (Hons.) in Hindi, and she could not be allowed to do M.A. in Hindi by any recognized University. As such, even the said appellant was not satisfying the eligibility criteria for the post of Assistant Teacher in Languages and has been rightly denied the post. 7. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules, guidelines and judicial pronouncement and taking into consideration the fact that admittedly, the main subject of petitioner in graduation is Math Honours, not Bangla, hence, she cannot be appointed for the post of Graduate Trained Teacher in Bangla Subject. There is no merit in the instant case. 8. Resultantly, writ petition stands dismissed.